Robot-assisted cervical esophagectomy: first clinical experiences and review of the literature

Robot-assisted cervical esophagectomy with simultaneous transhiatal abdominal procedure for thoracic esophageal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive robot-assisted cervical esophagectomy has been sporadically reported as a novel thoracic esophagectomy technique for patients with thoracic esophageal carcinoma. Most reports indicate that the abdominal component of robot-assisted cervical esophagectomy is performed sequentially after the cervical phase. However, if the cervical and abdominal phases are performed simultaneously using a nerve integrity monitoring system with no administration of muscle relaxants, there are two major advantages: a reduced risk of recurrent nerve palsy and a shorter operative time. We herein report our experience performing novel robot-assisted transcervical esophagectomy with a simultaneous transhiatal abdominal approach using a nerve integrity monitoring system.

METHODS

Thirty cases of robot-assisted cervical esophagectomy performed from 2023 to April 2024 were reviewed. The operative and short-term surgical outcomes of this procedure were compared with those of robot-assisted cervical esophagectomy using a sequential abdominal approach, and the feasibility and efficacy of the simultaneous procedure were analyzed.

RESULTS

All patients successfully underwent robot-assisted cervical esophagectomy with no intraoperative adverse events. There were no differences in the patients' demographic or operative data between the two groups. There was no difference in the mean operation time for the cervical procedure (p = 0.23). However, there was a significant difference in the total time for the whole procedure (sequential group: 453.8 ± 26.8 min, simultaneous group: 291.2 ± 36.1 min; p < 0.01). There were no differences in postoperative surgical complications between the groups. There was also no difference in the total number of surgically harvested mediastinal lymph nodes (p = 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted transcervical esophagectomy, a new technique for thoracic esophageal cancer, was safe and feasible under intraoperative management using nerve integrity monitoring without muscle relaxants. This procedure facilitates intraoperative monitoring of recurrent laryngeal nerve activity, significantly shortening the total operative time.

Robot-assisted transcervical esophagectomy with a bilateral cervical approach for thoracic esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Thoracic esophageal cancer resection through the neck approach has recently been reported as mediastinoscopic surgery. We present the first report of a new minimally invasive technique for thoracic esophageal cancer: robot-assisted transcervical esophagectomy with a bilateral cervical approach.

METHODS

Ten cases of robot-assisted bilateral transcervical esophagectomy performed at the National Cancer Center Hospital East, Japan, from February 2023 to August 2023 were reviewed. The short-term surgical outcomes were presented, and the feasibility and efficacy of this procedure were discussed.

RESULTS

The mean operation time for the cervical procedure was 184.2 ± 23.6 min. The total time for the whole procedure was 472.7 ± 28.4 min, and total intraoperative blood loss was 162.2 ± 40.0 ml. Among the 10 cases, one patient developed recurrent nerve paralysis, one patient developed pulmonary complications, and no patients developed postoperative pneumonia. The median postoperative hospital stay was 22 (range: 12-43) days. No patients developed severe postoperative surgical complications, which were graded as Clavien-Dindo ≥ III. The total number of surgically harvested mediastinal lymph nodes was 37.2 ± 11.2.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted bilateral transcervical esophagectomy, a novel procedure for thoracic esophageal cancer, was safe and feasible. Using this procedure, the incidence of recurrent nerve palsy, which is a problem with transcervical esophagectomy and mediastinoscopic esophagectomy, is expected to decrease.

Elective nodal irradiation versus involved-field irradiation for stage II-IV cervical esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients undergoing definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a retrospective propensity study with 8-year survival outcomes

BACKGROUND

Definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (dCCRT) is suggested as the standard treatment for cervical esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CESCC). This retrospective propensity study compared the 8-year survival outcomes and acute treatment toxicities of these patients treated with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) versus involved-field irradiation (IFI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with stage II-IV CESCC treated with dCCRT at the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2020 were enrolled in the study. All the patients were restaged according to the American Joint Commission 8th edition criteria. The propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize the effects of treatment selection bias and potential confounding factors including sex, age, ECOG score, clinical T stage, clinical N stage, clinical TNM stage and radiation dose between the ENI group and IFI group. Survival and the prognostic factors were evaluated.

RESULTS

The 131 eligible patients underwent ENI (60 patients, 45.8%) or IFI (71 patients, 54.2%). The median follow-up time was 91.1 months (range, 23.8-182.0 months) for all the patients. The median OS, 1-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year OS rates were 44.4 months, 87.8%, 55.1%, 38.3%, and 27.2%, respectively. After PSM, there were 49 patients in each group. The median OS, 1-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year OS rates for ENI and IFI group were 32.0 months, 83.7%, 48.5%, 38.5% and 31.1% versus 45.2 months, 89.8%, 52.5%, 37.5%, 26.1%, respectively (P = 0.966; HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.61-1.61). Similar locoregional control was obtained in both groups. The tendency of leukocytopenia and neutropenia was higher in ENI than in IFI (59.2% vs. 38.8%; P = 0.068 and 30.6% vs. 14.3%; P = 0.089) at the end of dCCRT.

CONCLUSION

Cervical esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients undergoing definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy has a satisfactory prognosis with organ conservation. The involved-field irradiation might be a better alternative owing to similar overall survival outcomes and local control with less toxicity of myelosuppression.

Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-thoracoscopic technique. Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence comparing conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) via laparoscopy and thoracoscopy with robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare surgical outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify original articles analyzing outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE. Main surgical outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, anastomotic leak rates, pneumonia, overall morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day mortality. Oncologic outcomes included lymph node yield and R0 resections rates. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 6,249 patients were included for analysis; 5,275 (84%) underwent CMIE and 974 (16%) RAMIE. Robotic esophagectomy had longer operative time and less intraoperative blood loss. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar with both approaches. Patients undergoing RAMIE had significantly lower rates of postoperative pneumonia (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61, P < .0001) and overall morbidity (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.79, P < .0001). Median LOS was similar in both procedures (RAMIE: 12.1 versus CMIE: 11.9 days, P = .64). Similar mortality rates were found after RAMIE and CMIE (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34-1.38, P = .29). Lymph node yield was similar in both procedures, but RAMIE was associated with higher rates of R0 resection (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.53-5.26, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing robotic esophagectomy have less intraoperative blood loss, lower rates of postoperative pneumonia, reduced overall morbidity, and higher rates of R0 resections, as compared with those undergoing a laparoscopic-thoracoscopic esophageal resection.

State of the art in esophagectomy: robotic assistance in the abdominal phase

Over the years, robot-assisted esophagectomy gained popularity. The current literature focused mainly on robotic assistance in the thoracic phase, whereas the implementation of robotic assistance in the abdominal phase is lagging behind. Advantages of adding a robotic system to the abdominal phase include robotic stapling and the increased surgeon's independency. In terms of short-term outcomes and lymphadenectomy, robotic assistance is at least equal to laparoscopy. Yet high quality evidence to conclude on this topic remains scarce. This review focuses on the evidence of robotic assistance in the abdominal phase of esophagectomy.